|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I've a question regarding this portion of the feat. Does the character with deadly dealer (as a spellcaster) need craft magical arms and armor to enchant the deck as per the above, or does the deadly dealer feat itself give this ability?
Nothing in the text says, but since the Deck of Slivering Fate requires Craft Magical Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item in addition to the Deadly Dealer feat, I'd imagine you'd need those two crafting feats to pull it off.
Hm, have you looked at Chevalier? At 3rd level they get Smite Evil 1/day at character level. So I might go Paladin 2/Chevelier3, and pick up Bracers of the Avenging Knight to boost both class's smite level by 4.
As far as the strength of the build, looks okay. Not sure it's better than going straight bard or paladin. Dawnflower Dervish would get you twice the attack/damage bonus of Archeologist though. And with Divine Grace, I'm not sure how important the save boost of Archeologist's luck would be.
Iajutsu strike is a nice option if you can't full-attack, but I wouldn't build around that ability. The flat bonuses from Challenge seem to favor multiple attacks over a single strong blow. Not sure it'll be worth sacrificing an iterative attack at levels 6-9, and at levels 10-20 you'll only want to use it when closing the distance between enemies.
I agree with this, except I think that there would be less of a consensus on how the two class features interact if everyone hadn't spent several pages rallying together over plain as day rules mechanics (needing to be a certain level in a class to get that class feature).
For instance, I think it's less clear how the two class features merge, if at all. Typically, when you have two class features of the same name but slightly different mechanics, the text will tell you how those class features stack and interact. I think you can apply rules logic to make some reasonable conclusions, but there's an absence of concrete rules here.
Though to discuss that, you'd need a ceasefire over the whole Sohei 6 thing, and it seems that for every person who realizes arguing further is pointless, another steps in.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ah, I see. Seems obvious now, my head was just spinning. The question and first sentence of the answer are pretty dense. But more so, the FAQ doesn't call out an example of what doesn't work, which seems important since the FAQ is directly addressing those examples.
Hm, I'm a bit confused. So a Bard (Magician) can now only use expanded repertoire to select spells already on the bard spell list? It only says you add the spell to your spells known, not your spell list.
So you would have a +2 from two handed fighter training for any two handed weapon and could flurry with them and a seperate +1 from Sohei that doesnt stack with any two handed weapons. but if you choose a weapon group aside from polearms, say thrown weapons, you could still flurry with thrown weapons, yes? It sounds like you are saying the two handed fighter archetype limits a sohei's ability gain weapon training.
First, a two-handed fighter still selects weapon groups, it's just that "the bonuses only apply when wielding two-handed melee weapons." So if we're working under the assumption that expansions to the Sohei's weapon training ability likewise apply to the fighter's weapon training apply, then the inverse should also be true. That said, Two-handed fighter specifies the "bonuses" of weapon training, which are purely numerical (as opposed to the more general "benefits"). This means that a THF5/Sohei6 with +2 in the polearms group and +1 in the thrown weapons group could flurry or ki strike with any weapon in either group, but would only gain the bonus to attack and damage from weapon training when using two-handed melee weapons within either group.
That's my interpretation of the RAW, anyway. RAI, I think the Sohei's weapon training should have been named something unique, so as to have separate bonuses/benefits that stack with the bonuses/benefits of weapon training, rather than weirdly stacking class features.
I agree that you don't get the ability to flurry with weapon groups obtained through weapon training until your 6th level of Sohei. Skimming the thread, for the last 2 pages I think the only one to disagree with this is Malachi.
Another way to look at it is that if you don't have the levels (or effective levels) in a class needed to acquire a class feature, that class feature isn't on your character sheet. And if a class feature isn't on your character sheet, you can't use it.
@Torbyne: If the two class features indeed stack, then I don't think you'd select polearms twice. You'd select polearms as a weapon group at Two-Handed Fighter 5, then select a different group at Sohei 6, bumping polearms up to +2. You'd gain the ability to flurry and ki strike with any weapon groups picked up through two-handed fighter, but could only gain weapon training bonuses with two-handed weapons (even those gained through Sohei).
Ah, my mistake. I think I was just confused by the order of the text. The second paragraph starts off with a sentence about choosing not to use the conjured ammunition, leading me to believe it was the start of a new idea, but it then proceeds to assign properties to the conjured ammunition. Move that sentence to the end of the paragraph and it becomes a lot clearer. Sorry about that!
So yes, it looks like that enhancement is almost never worth it.
@Kudaku: You've skipped over some important text! Look again:
Only bows and crossbows can be made into endless ammunition weapons—firearms and other projectile weapons cannot. Each time an endless ammunition weapon is nocked, a single non-magical arrow or bolt is spontaneously created by the magic, so the weapon's wielder never needs to load the weapon with ammunition.
With there being no need to reload, it obviously negates the normal action cost. Additionally, it lets you make multiple attacks with that crossbow using only one hand (though with the standard penalties). Handy if you're in a grapple, really want that tower shield, or for whatever reason feel the need to dual wield crossbows. The restriction you were looking at applies only to loading the crossbow with ammunition not conjured by the enhancement.
If the wielder attempts to load the weapon with other ammunition, the created arrow or bolt immediately vanishes and the wielder can load the weapon as normal. This ability does not reduce the amount of time required to load or fire the weapon. The created arrow or bolt vanishes if removed from the weapon; it persists only if fired. Unlike normal bow and crossbow ammunition, these arrows and bolts are always destroyed when fired.
I think another way to look at the question is "Does a dwarf need weapon familiarity to treat the dorn-dergar as a martial weapon?". I think the intent is that yes, you need weapon familiarity as a racial trait, and that the line in the description of the dorn-derger is simply reiterating the function of weapon familiarity.
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
I think the best way to use the "not destroyed, returning" ability of the Cartomancer is to get a +1 Spell Storing deck...
Spell Storing can only be placed melee weapons (unless the archetype makes some change to that).
@Magda: Those templates are useful, but some have errors (or are at least debatable). I'm not aware of Paizo having released any templates officially.
The first collection of templates is mostly consistent with the ones in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, except they have a different interpretation of reach for medium and large (long) creatures. Basically, a creature shouldn't be able to slip through a reach weapon's threatened area by moving diagonally.
The bottom graph has the right reach for medium creatures, but large and huge are totally wrong.
I think the writer meant for the action to be "5 rounds", which would mean you'd need to take a full-round action each round for 5 rounds to perform the masterpiece, and at the beginning of your turn in the 6th round, the action would be complete (that's at least how a spell would work).
It's an okay option if you've got half a minute to buff and the enemy can't hear your bizarre monologue from the other side of the door.
We've had a lot of magic item crafters in my group, and this hasn't been much a problem for us. Sure you could craft a luck blade with one wish at low levels, but is it worth it? At low levels, I'd rather put that 32k towards a cloak of resistance or an ability boosting item or some handy wondrous item. Candle of Invocation is more problematic, but the player still won't want to gate in something of a higher HD than it can control. Since custom magic items are subject to DM approval, in practice this hasn't done anything to throw our games out of whack.
No, that's not how reach weapons work. A reach weapon doubles a creature's natural reach, but prevents them from attacking creatures with that weapon within the range of their normal reach.
Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach...A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
Here's a link to the developer clarification on double-barreled weapons.
The double barreled weapon essentially gives you two attacks with a single attack action (or two attacks for any attack you'd normally make as part of a full-attack). With vital strike, it specifies that one attack deals additional damage, so I agree the bonus damage would only apply to the first shot.
Dead shot is a similar ability, but works differently. A double-barreled weapon would let you fire your deadshot twice (at the cost of -4 on all the attack rolls). Sounds crazy, but it's still lower damage than someone focused on full-attacking.
Double-barreled weapons are also never labeled as a volley, and there are no limitations presented on dealing precision damage with them. I remember the vaguely defined rules for volleys in 3.5, but haven't seen them called out in Pathfinder. Anyone got a link?
I agree that using a swift during a whirlwind attack to shorten his grip is valid. However, as it's written, he'd only be able to attack adjacent targets with that ability, which is more limited than his natural reach. Probably just an oversight, but that's how it's worded. On the other hand, lunge remains in effect with both reach and shortened grip, so he could actually compensate for the 5' gap that way.
Trox are monstrous humanoids, and enlarge person can only target humanoid creatures. If he found some other way to hit huge size though, then he'd be a unable to strike creatures 15' way (5'-10' at shortened grip with lunge, 20'-35' with reach and lunge).
This was an issue in 3.5 as well, so it'd be nice to see it settled. You'd have thought they'd have made just one table for all increases/decreases at the start of 3.0, but two revisions later and the rules are still scattered.
I've always leaned towards using the two Improved Natural Attack progressions for all increases and decreases, though it's a bit awkward to expand that progression by having 1d10 reduce to 1d8 (since 1d8 typically increases to 2d6). It's all that d10's fault!
I think Weapon Versatility, as a feat, is just a bit misguided. Slashing someone with a sap? Imagining that involves imagining a different weapon, I think. On the other hand, I'm not sure any restrictions were intended on how you can switch up damage, and I think the feat is balanced by itself.
Preferably, I'd like to see clearer rules on using weapons as improvised weapons (which gives the DM more say as to what's logical, as Kathanan is wanting) and weapon style feats tailored to making you more adept at those uses.
I agree that you wouldn't add sneak attack damage, on the basis that you don't make an attack roll yourself. An arrow trap, for instance, has a +15 attack bonus, so it attacks independently. Despite triggering it, you're not aiming it, so you can't target a creature's vitals.
I'd guess the intended benefit of this talent is simply that you decide when to trigger your trap. So say you've built a pit trap and want to lure an enemy onto it. Make the trap's trigger timed to go off in one year, so your allies can pass over it at no risk, but activate it as a swift when an enemy stands on it (or ready an action to do so, you can ready a swift).
Not to derail the thread, but is that the full text of the feat? You could adjust your grip on a club or firearm to deal slashing damage? Seems kind of...odd. I'd prefer improvised rules to that.
Ah, sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant was that your final damage for the first unarmed strike using both dragon style and dragon ferocity is your unarmed strike die + (1.5 x your strength modifier, in place of your usual strength modifier) + (.5 x your strength modifier), for a total of 2x your strength modifier to damage. The rest of your primary unarmed strikes for that round would add 1.5x your strength modifier to damage (your usual strength modifier +.5x your strength modifier).
As a house rule, I was just suggesting Dragon Style add .5x your strength modifier to avoid it giving a disproportionate edge to an offhand unarmed strike, supposing that was the first unarmed strike you made in a round.
First, cantrips aren't just 0th level spells in Pathfinder, but a distinct class feature. Alchemists do not have cantrips.
Second, you can only learn spells from a wizard's spellbook if those spells also appear on the alchemist's extract list. They're learned as extracts of a level appropriate to the alchemist, not wizard.
Third, Metamagic feats have no bearing on spellbooks. They're applied when a wizard memorizes their spells per day. Alchemists, as written, can't even make use of metamagic feats.
Setting aside flurry of blows for a moment, this feat has the odd effect that you add 1.5x your strength bonus on the first unarmed strike made in a round even if it's an off-hand attack. It could even be interpreted through a literal reading as allowing you to add 1.5x your strength bonus in addition to the usual strength bonus to damage (though the "normal" section implies that's not the intent).
Dragon Ferocity is a lot more streamlined in that it simply adds half your strength modifier to all unarmed strikes. That works fine with flurry, whereas I agree Dragon Style presents a conflict. Accordingly, I would just revise Dragon Style to add .5x your strength bonus on the first unarmed strike you make in a round.
Either way, as written, the first unarmed strike you make with Dragon Ferocity (assuming it's a primary attack) uses x2 your strength bonus for damage, which is pretty cool.
I wouldn't consider alchemist extracts to be Supernatural effects. I think labeling the Alchemy class feature (Su) was one of several mistakes. Extracts behave in no other way like supernatural abilities (they can be dispelled, consuming them provokes), and given their similarity to spells, it seems reasonable that spell resistance would apply.
For an example of an extract where this is relevant, fire breath.
There isn't much point in arguing that an item that generates an anti-magic field is impossible. One has already been printed.
Anyway, 120k for 1 minute of AMF per day is a big investment. 60k if you craft it yourself, which is more reasonable, but takes feats. You need tower shield proficiency to avoid some hefty penalties, and it prohibits wielding a weapon two-handed. So useful, but not for everyone.
Good GMs will also throw mixed encounters at you. So that arch wizard might be guarded by a dragon. Throwing up an AMF will let you rip the wizard apart, but you'll have to make it through the dragon's threatened area with all your magic nullified first.
There's an item that does this! Equalizer Shield. There was also an item in 3.5 that provided a 1/day anti-magic field, the Anti-magic Torc (Underdark, 25k).
I haven't gotten the opportunity to play a character with either option, but I think it'd be useful occasionally. The biggest issue I think is that even if your character is optimized to work without magic, most of your party probably isn't.
Bottled Ooze is an awesome idea, but it's a pretty terrible discovery. The low CR restriction is bad. Worse, you don't control the ooze, and can only throw it out to a range of 30ft. It's nice that you decide when and where the ooze appears, but it makes the tactical applications pretty limited. At worst, you've just added another monster to the encounter (that you won't get XP for).
My argument against a buff is only that the discovery needs a revision first. Pathfinder deliberately revised all 3.5 abilities that allowed you to become a monster for a reason. Writers don't intend for their monsters to be used by the players, so you can end up with some unbalanced options (such creatures that create spawn). Which is probably why they were so conservative with the CR.
I'd change the range to 20ft, but treat it as a thrown weapon (5 range increments), let the alchemist mentally compel the ooze as a move action, and make a specific list of oozes for each extract level. Though if you were feeling more ambitious, you could homebrew an ooze that scales with level, and even give it a list selectable abilities (similar to an eidolon).
So, looking at the buckler gun, I'm having trouble understanding the intended function. Historically, bucklers were held, so it's not too hard to imagine a buckler gun working that way. But in Pathfinder, bucklers are strapped to the arm, allowing for a free hand. So how do you fire the gun? Or, more specifically:
1.)Do you still have a free hand when armed with a buckler gun?
2.)Do you take a -1 penalty to the attack roll when firing a buckler gun, since you're using the off-hand carrying the buckler? Do you lose the buckler gun's shield bonus until your next turn?
3.)To create a masterwork buckler gun, do you pay the costs of both a masterwork shield and a masterwork weapon? Do you determine the hardness and hit points of the item as a buckler or a projectile weapon? How do you handle special materials?
Or maybe you're meant to fire the gun with the hand on which the buckler isn't strapped?
I think the intent is that the ability applies to willing targets only. Even then, it's not too clear by what means you confer that ability (touch? proximity?). Even if you could grant a creature earth glide against its will, it's dubious that you could force them to use it by pulling them underground. Even then, if the ability must be spent in 1-minute increments, then they've got plenty of time to just climb right out.
There's also nothing that states what happens if the duration ends while you're within stone. The rules suggest you're not actually displacing stone while you move through it, so I think it's unlikely you'd be encased by it. I'd say you're shunted out to a random open space, as dimension door.
By the way, what you're attempting is similar to the Shaitan's Stone Curse.
The Bombs class feature is a bit of a mess in that it's a set of combined actions. You draw the components for, mix, and throw the bomb all with the same action. The act of mixing and throwing the bomb isn't supernatural, but the effects of the bomb are. But the rules never make this distinction. Bombs meet all the prerequisites of the conductive property.
I think the only argument against them working together is that it goes against the logic of bombs. The ranged touch attack shouldn't be considered supernatural, just the effects, and a conductive weapon is an odd substitution for the process of alchemy. Though, as mentioned, explosive missile essentially does the same thing. It's a powerful option, but nothing too crazy.
How to determine amount of hit dice and levels on an animal companion over Effective druid level 20?
Yeah, I wouldn't count on playing this. I think it's clear that Animal Ally wasn't intended to work the way it does, and it would indeed be a dodgy reading of Horse Master to try to multiply the effective levels it grants. I would settle for less dubious tricks and make due with 30 something HD of animal companions.
The FAQ rules that Vital Strike can't be used in combination with spring attack or a charge, and by the same logic wouldn't work with shot on the run. House ruling otherwise makes sense though.
I'd drop Far Shot in favor of Signature Deed (Deadeye), which will essentially let you always hit touch AC within the first two range increments. The Distance weapon enhancement (+1) is also a must have. With that, he'll be hitting touch AC within 160ft. Since Seeking (+1) covers half the function of improved precise shot, you might drop that for Deft Shootist Deed (Grit Feat), which allows you to avoid provoking while reloading and firing firearms. Depends on how confident you are of his ability to stay out of melee, I guess.
Haha, I had a feeling that statement would be challenged! I'll skip on trying to counter with absurd Pathfinder-level tests of skill though. Neat video.
I was under the impression musket master did nothing for advanced firearms. Unlike early firearms, it's a move action to reload both one-handed and two-handed advanced firearms, so the reduction from Fast Musket has no effect. Rapid reload doesn't seem to take into account advanced firearms either. Am I missing something? (I know there was a thread debating metal cartridges reload speed, but I didn't keep up with it.)
I don't think alchemists and gunslingers are all that comparable. Alchemist is a pretty versatile class with the potential to nova, but have to conserve their resources. A Gunslinger is very narrow but with enough ammunition can pour out full-attack damage all day. Measuring one against the other seems a bit arbitrary to me, given their different functions.
The way I look at it, if huge or larger creatures are treated as if they failed their save against a tanglefoot bag, that doesn't change that they're unaffected by a tanglefoot bag. By extension, I think they'd be unaffected by a tanglefoot bomb. Though I can see how you'd argue the other way on it. There's wiggle room when you have to patch together your own class feature.
I think the omission of tanglefoot bomb in the FAQ was just oversight. Nothing in the text suggests your bomb ceases to deal damage.
Anyway, I can say that I've playtested this write-up for a year and a half, and it was extremely useful, even with the size limitation (though that really comes down to DM monster preference. We fought only half a dozen huge or larger monsters at levels 1-9).
I think the reload time is the only thing that breaks immersion, for me. I mean, no one can operate a bow with the speed and accuracy that's possible in D&D/PF, but it's conceivable. The speed in which a character can reload a muzzle-loaded blackpowder firearm is just absurd. You'd be a Flash-like blur, to the point that it's comical. And it's pretty strange that it's possible to reload a musket faster than a shotgun.
As far as the Gunslinger goes, I think they had the right idea with the Dead Shot deed, letting your extra attacks amount to taking more time to aim a shot. It's just that the damage doesn't compare to a full-attack, and you have to spend grit to even do it. I think if deeds were selected every other level, grit more abundant, and deeds more effective, it would actually make for a more balanced class. Sure it'd be a buff, but with more tactical options available the gunslinger would have more incentive to do something other than full-attack every round.
As far as the world-building implications of guns, I don't think their inclusion makes that big a dent. They function differently from real world firearms and within a very unreal world. It takes as much dedication to make them usable as it does for someone to learn reality bending magic.
The extract states that your bombs "do not splash", which means the bomb has no splash radius, which is the area that determines the area of the fog cloud formed by the smoke bomb line of discoveries. That would be a simple answer, but then there's the line:
"This effect on your magical reserve has no effect on any discoveries that you use to modify your bombs..."
Which doesn't seem entirely true. Explosive bombs aren't going to splash out to 10ft if they don't splash at all. Sticky Bomb raises a similar question. If the bomb doesn't splash, does it still have splash damage to be applied by sticky bomb? If so, do you add twice your intelligence modifier to that splash damage?
At any rate, it either nullifies the cloud entirely, or the cloud is created entirely as normal. There's nothing that suggests the cloud would affect only a single target or have a reduced area.
I think it's a bit extreme to argue that a bomb with no splash effect ceases to be a splash weapon. There are other abilities that apply to splash weapons that should still be in effect, like the benefits of far shot gained through splash weapon mastery. But I agree that targeted bomb admixture has no risk of dealing splash damage on a miss, since it doesn't splash.
Does the Racial Heritage feat, combined with a feat that improves an inherent feature (claws, poison, etc) grant you that feature?
I agree with the argument that you don't necessarily grow a tail by taking tail terror. I also agree that if you don't have a tail, you can't make a tail slap.
On the other hand, I don't think it's unfair to allow someone with racial heritage (kobold) to gain a tail slap through tail terror. In this case, each feat is essentially doing what it was intended to do; racial heritage (kobold) is giving you access to a kobold feat, tail terror is granting your character a tail slap. I wouldn't call that abusive. Besides, if you want to say that your human has a kobold tail because of his racial heritage (kobold), hey, that's no more absurd than having kobold heritage in the first place.
Well, another question is whether or not the increase to mobility is a property of the item's magic, or a quality of the unnamed special material it's made out of. That's important not just for determining if it's eligible to become mithral, but what happens to it within an anti-magic field.
This is more of a "the rules don't say anything about this" thing. Tail Terror was written assuming only kobolds could take it. The RAW doesn't state you grow a tail or that you need a tail to gain the tail slap, it implies you already have one. If you don't have a tail, the feat makes a false presumption and you need to look at the RAI. Problem is that human heritage offers no clue to the intent of how that feat is meant to work in these situations.
This is a question that should never come up. Human heritage should address how to handle racial feats that grant natural attacks, but it doesn't. Anatomy prerequisites, such as needing a hand to gain a claw attack or needing a mouth to gain a bite attack, is something implied by game text but never stated explicitly. So I'm of the opinion that there is no answer to be found in the RAW or RAI. It's something unforeseen by the writers that requires developer clarification or a call by the GM.
I posted a thread about this a long time ago that didn't go anywhere (link). Whereas previously alchemical weapons required no proficiency, Ultimate Equipment lists alchemical weapons on a table labeled "Simple Weapons", and categorizes them under light melee weapons, one-handed melee weapons, and ranged weapons. So depending on how much weight you give to that table, weapon focus (acid) might be viable. It's arguable if quick draw would apply. The feat applies to weapons and prohibits alchemical items. I'd allow it for alchemical weapons though, since unlike the other prohibited items they're actually weapons.
There's nothing there that says it can ONLY be used as part of a full-round action. The first sentence leaves open the door, while the second merely says "can" prepare as part of full round action. But I'd love a more definitive ruling, since it'll affect whether I dip into Archer (Fighter archetype) to get the extra feats & BAB to get Snapshot and Improved Snapshot.
Ah, no. The first sentence tells you what the discovery accomplishes, the text that follows specifies how. Fast bombs doesn't grant you any benefit beyond the ability to use a full-round action to make a full-attack with your bombs. So snap shot is right out.
It's worth mentioning that Improved Multiweapon Fighting and Greater Multiweapon fighting did exist in 3.0/3.5, but were never republished in Pathfinder.
As far as not qualifying as having the two-weapon fighting, that's iffy. Multiweapon fighting states
Multiweapon Fighting wrote:
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
That's pretty open-ended wording. So maybe it only replaces your option of taking two-weapon fighting, but maybe it replaces every iteration of that feat for that character. So if another feat had two-weapon fighting as a prerequisite, it now has multiweapon fighting as a prerequisite in its place.
Haha, I wrote up a build that used a double-barreled pistol, but never bothered trying to TWF with them. At at certain point you've just got enough damage. Invest in something tactical! At the very least double-barreled firearms can help free up the feat tax of playing a gunslinger.
Yeah, the question of how double-barreled firearms function really does justify an FAQ clarification. It comes up often and the rules have no direct parallel to any other option. Though my feeling is that if this were done, it would either be nerfed or it wouldn't be nerfed, we'd see a 1000 post discussion of the FAQ entry, and then it would be nerfed. So for now, maybe just enjoy it quietly. :)
On balancing the gunslinger, I'll resist the urge to go off-topic, but at least say that the issues go way beyond individual firearms. (In theory, anyway. I've never played as or with a gunslinger).
@Rynjin: A free hand and an off-hand are two separate ideas. An off-hand is something defined only in the rules for two-weapon fighting, and isn't limited to just a hand (armor spikes). A free hand is an open hand.
I would argue that a longbow doesn't occupy your "off-hand". As a counter-example, I know you can't attack with armor spikes as an off-hand attack while wielding a two-handed weapon. That's a specific exception made by the FAQ, not something with game text to back it up (that I'm aware of). An off-hand is used when making an off-hand attack (through two-weapon fighting). Using a bow is not making an off-hand attack.
As far as two-weapon fighting with a longbow and an off-hand attack (such as a kick or a weapon held in a vestigial arm), I'd say maybe. The rules for two-weapon fighting really don't anticipate a character holding anything more than one weapon in each hand. That said, I probably wouldn't try it. The rules don't prohibit it, but they don't support it either.
@BBT: The rules for handedness and off-hands are barely defined. It's a weak spot in the core rules. If an ability is clearly meant to apply only to two-handed melee weapons, that's all it applies to.